Rahn v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 18 January 1916
• Docket Number: 216.
• Citation: 87 S.E. 1061,144 Ga. 644
• Parties: RAHN v. HAMILTON. HAMILTON v. RAHN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

87 S.E. 1061

144 Ga. 644

RAHN v. HAMILTON.

HAMILTON v. RAHN.

No. 216.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 18, 1916

Syllabus by the Court.

There can be no legal adoption of a minor child (or adult person) in this state, except as provided in the Civil Code of 1910 § 3016 et seq. Accordingly, where the granduncle of the plaintiff and of her brother (plaintiff in another suit) asked their mother, "Do you mean for me to have those children?" and the mother replied, "Yes, sir, I do;" and the uncle said: "Don't you never fret nor worry about these little children; never no more. I will be a father for those children; they are my own children, my own flesh and blood;" and he said: "As far as that goes, I will die by it. * * * Daughter, remember this: I am more able to take care of those children than you are, and I mean to do it. * * * When this old head is laid in the sod there will be a God's plenty left behind for them;" and, "Remember that, daughter, will you?" and she replied: "Yes, uncle, I will;" and she testified that that was why she "happened to surrender the children to him;" and where the children were taken by the uncle to his home, maintained, and sent to school until his death, which occurred over two years later--this and other evidence of similar import did not constitute a legal adoption of the children, so that they could inherit from the decedent's estate.

Where the uncle died, leaving a widow as his sole heir at law, and the plaintiff (11 years thereafter) upon arriving at age brought an action to be declared to have been adopted by the decedent in his lifetime, and to be entitled to inherit a third undivided interest in his estate, and to recover the same from the widow of the decedent (who had administered on his estate, and receipted to herself as administratrix for the entire estate on the ground that she as his widow, was his sole heir at law); and where the evidence on the trial of the case failed to show any such legal adoption of the plaintiff by the decedent as would entitle her to recover and where there was no allegation of any contract between the decedent or his widow and the plaintiff, or evidence to show that the plaintiff rendered services to the decedent in his lifetime in pursuance of a contract, and that a fraud would be perpetrated upon the plaintiff unless the contract was performed, or such other facts as would create an equitable status, so as to bring the case within the...